I'd love to see this changed. I've had two instances (that I know of) where I carried inside a 51% location and didn't see the sign until I was leaving. May have had grounds for a defense but still was the in violation. One was a wine store in Gruene. Have never seen a liquor store posted so didn't occur to me that they had wine tasting, hence on site consumption. The other was like many restaurants that also have a bar. Never occurred to me until I saw the sign after lunch.

The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

Rhino1 wrote:I'd love to see this changed. I've had two instances (that I know of) where I carried inside a 51% location and didn't see the sign until I was leaving. May have had grounds for a defense but still was the in violation. One was a wine store in Gruene. Have never seen a liquor store posted so didn't occur to me that they had wine tasting, hence on site consumption. The other was like many restaurants that also have a bar. Never occurred to me until I saw the sign after lunch.

To have a 51% sign, the wine store would need to make at least 51% of their sales on the CONSUMPTION of alcohol. I don't know of any wine stores that do this, maybe it was a wine bar.

Texas LTC Instructor, NRA pistol instructor, RSO, NRA Endowment Life , TSRA, Glock enthusiast (tho I have others)
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to add it to a fruit salad.

You will never know another me, this could be good or not so good, but it is still true.

I do not think guns and alcohol mix - ever. But imho 51% is a not the best way to go about it. There has to be a more sensible way that can pass through the legislature. I agree about the frustration of being in an establishment yet I'm prohibited from carrying as I don't drink. Where this is the biggest problem is when it is tied to a vendor selling in a non prohibited place (think city or county owned venues) but because the license is tied to the vendor the entire premises is now 51% - even if it is being rented by some other group and alcohol isn't being sold.
This needs to be fixed definitively!

Repealing the 51% prohibition as a stand-alone bill has no chance of passing. As part of repealing off-limits areas in a comprehensive bill, it can pass. It could well be that it would include a ban on drinking while carrying in a 51% location.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Repealing the 51% prohibition as a stand-alone bill has no chance of passing. As part of repealing off-limits areas in a comprehensive bill, it can pass. It could well be that it would include a ban on drinking while carrying in a 51% location.

Chas.

I dont see a problem with that and could certainly live with it.

Finally woke up.......... Proud NRA Life member.
Proud member of TSRA as well.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Repealing the 51% prohibition as a stand-alone bill has no chance of passing. As part of repealing off-limits areas in a comprehensive bill, it can pass. It could well be that it would include a ban on drinking while carrying in a 51% location.

Chas.

Would be strange to be able to carry at a bar and grill (like Chili's) with a beer but not at a real bar. Does it not lead into some possible poison amendment to make it illegal to carry and have any alcohol anywhere?

twomillenium wrote:To have a 51% sign, the wine store would need to make at least 51% of their sales on the CONSUMPTION of alcohol. I don't know of any wine stores that do this, maybe it was a wine bar.

The problem with this is that the TABC application doesn't ask the question that way and the law says the TABC determination. The application just asks for the percentage of sales from alcoholic beverages and then checks to see if the license is for on-premise consumption. Many places that sell for on and off premise consumption have no realistic way to determine the split between the two.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Repealing the 51% prohibition as a stand-alone bill has no chance of passing. As part of repealing off-limits areas in a comprehensive bill, it can pass. It could well be that it would include a ban on drinking while carrying in a 51% location.

That sounds reasonable, especially if the new law applies to everybody. LTC, LEO, MIL, FED

twomillenium wrote:To have a 51% sign, the wine store would need to make at least 51% of their sales on the CONSUMPTION of alcohol. I don't know of any wine stores that do this, maybe it was a wine bar.

The problem with this is that the TABC application doesn't ask the question that way and the law says the TABC determination. The application just asks for the percentage of sales from alcoholic beverages and then checks to see if the license is for on-premise consumption. Many places that sell for on and off premise consumption have no realistic way to determine the split between the two.

I have never seen a wine or liquor store that "sells" anything for on premises consumption. I've been in many with blue signs that offer samples. Are any stores that offer samples required to get an on premises license?

Designated drivers going to a bar should stay in the car. I've seen too many normally passive people get mean, nasty and obnoxious when drinking. I would feel more comfortable knowing they weren't carrying a firearm personally. They could do away with the signs, but not allow carrying while in a bar. I think everyone knows what a bar is. An alcoholic beverage drinking establishment.

My pub crawling days are long behind me, but there are times I'd like to go someplace for entertainment where alcohol is served. Some outfits apparently contract out the bar services, meaning the company that sells the drinks definitely earns over 51% of their income from alcohol sales. This makes the entire place off-limits. I'd like to see that rule changed.

A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition. — Rudyard Kipling
NRA Life Member
TSRA Life Member